Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In review proceedings concerning FEMA and TISPRO allegations, the HC reiterated that, where no limitation period is prescribed, whether a show-cause notice was issued within a reasonable period is fact-specific and should be urged before the adjudicating authority, with statutory appellate remedies remaining available under FEMA. It refused to treat prior case law on reassessment or statutory delay as a universal bar to penal proceedings, and held that issues about RBI notification timing, the FDI policy, exit from the company, and the definition of "Group Company" were merits-based and partly fact-disputed. Finding no error apparent in the earlier writ order, the review applications were dismissed.
In review proceedings concerning FEMA and TISPRO allegations, the HC reiterated that, where no limitation period is prescribed, whether a show-cause notice was issued within a reasonable period is fact-specific and should be urged before the adjudicating authority, with statutory appellate remedies remaining available under FEMA. It refused to treat prior case law on reassessment or statutory delay as a universal bar to penal proceedings, and held that issues about RBI notification timing, the FDI policy, exit from the company, and the definition of "Group Company" were merits-based and partly fact-disputed. Finding no error apparent in the earlier writ order, the review applications were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.